Agendas and Minutes, 1992 October 5

Meetinf! of: 
UNIVERSITY RENATF 
ATTENDANCE · 
Od;b__;6 I lffe? 
. 
I 
University Senate 
Administration 259 
Albany, New York 12222 
1. 
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY 
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 
UNIVERSITY SENATE 
Monday, October 5, 1992 
Campus Center Assembly Hall 
Approval of Minutes: 
AGENDA 
1991-92 University Senate, May 4, 1992 
1992-93 University Senate, May 4, 1992 
2. 
President's Report 
3. 
SUNY -wide Senate Report 
Vincent Aceto 
Paul Wallace 
4. 
Chair's Report 
5. 
Council Reports 
a. 
CPCA 
b. 
EPC 
c. 
GAC 
d. 
UAC 
e. 
RES 
f. 
LISC 
g. 
CAFE 
h. 
SAC 
i. 
ucc 
Ronald Bosco 
Joan Schulz 
Richard F elson 
Bonnie Spanier 
Lorretta Smith 
Mark Steinberger 
Scott Lyman 
James Kiepper 
Reed Hoyt 
6. 
Old Business 
7; 
New Business 
a. 
Council Changes 
b. 
Report of the Committee on Student Conduct, 1991-92 
c. 
Update on Senate Bill No. 9192-01: General Education Program 
(Professor Cyril Knoblauch) 
d. 
Update on Senate Bill No. 8990-29: Assessment Report- University 
at Albany (Dr. J. Fredericks Volkwein) 
e. 
Senate Meeting Dates (for your information) 
8. 
Adjournment 
518/442-5406 
--- - ------ --
--
-
University Senate 
Administration 259 
Albany, New York 12222 
I -
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY 
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES 
October 5, 1992 
518/442-5406 
Present: 
C. Anthony, R. Bosco, J. Baskin, J. Berman, L. Brannon, C. Carr, Jr., A. 
Champagne, L. Childs, R. Collier, R. Craig, E. A. Danticat, N. Denton, G. 
DeSole, S. Faerman, E. Fagan, R. Farrell, R. Felson, F. Frank, R. Gibson, E. 
Gossen, W. Gould, J. Gullahorn, R. Hardt, P. Hemingway, R. Hoyt, A. 
Jackson, C. Kersten, S. B. Kim, J. Levato, M. Livingston, S. Lyman, A. 
Macario, D. Munoz, J. Parker, J. Pipkin, J. Schulz, D. Smith, L. Smith, B. 
Spanier, M. Steinberger, G. Stevens, D. Strogatz, S. Thomson, E. Turner, J. 
F. Volkwein, P. Wallace, G. Walker, J. Wessman 
Chair Brannon called the meeting to order at 3:40p.m. 
1. 
Approval of Minutes 
2. 
The minutes of the 1991-92 May 4 University Senate meeting and the 1992-93 May 
4 University Senate meeting were approved as printed. 
President's Report 
President Swygert noted that he will be meeting with the editorial board of the Daily 
Gazette and Money magazine. He has already met with the editorial board of the 
Times Union. 
The President reported that the Search Committee for the Vice President for 
Finance and Busmess is proceeding with advertisements. The Search Committee 
for the Dean of the Arts and Sciences and the Transition Committee are working 
closely with Vice President Hitchcock and will report to the Senate. A faculty 
committee has been established to design the academic program for the Center for 
Environmental Sciences and Technology Management, reported the President. 
President Swygert gave a report on the Commencement ceremonies in May. He 
also noted that the December Graduate Assembly will be held in the RACC. The 
President urged the faculty to attend the Assembly. 
Turning to the budget, the President reported that the budget "mantra" will be 
stability and restoration for next year. He has drafted a letter to the Governor from 
the SUNY campus Presidents concerning this. 
A number of issues were raised with the Senate Executive Committee, reported the 
President. Two issues are the quality of life on campus (discussion needs to begin) 
and the recruitment and retentwn of minority group students. 
2 
The President then showed the video supporting the Capital Campaign. The 
Senators commented positively on the film. 
3. 
SUNY-wide Senate Report 
Senator Wallace reviewed the report that was included in the agenda packet. This 
was a meeting of governance leaders. The first SUNY -wide Senate meeting will be 
held on October 15-17, 1992, in Geneseo. 
4. 
Chair's Report 
Chair Brannon welcomed the 1992-93 University Senate to a busy year. 
5. 
Council Reports 
a. 
CPCA: Senator Bosco noted that CPCA restored a past practice on 
submitting a report of the Council's activities. This type of reporting will continue 
through this year. 
b. 
EPC: Senator Schulz had nothing to report. 
c. 
GAC: Senator Felson had nothing to report. 
d. 
UAC: Senator Spanier had nothing to report. 
e. 
RES: Senator Smith had nothing to report. 
f. 
LISC: Senator Steinberger had nothing to report. 
g. 
CAFE: Senator Lyman had nothing to report. 
h. 
SAC: Ms. Denton, reporting for Senator Kiepper , noted that the Council 
has met and the committees were established. 
i. 
UCC: Senator Hoyt reported that the Council has met and committees were 
established. The Council is looking at quality of life issues. 
6. 
Old Business 
There was no Old Business. 
7. 
New Business 
a. 
Council Changes: The Council changes as circulated were moved, seconded 
and accepted. 
b. 
Report of the Committee on Student Conduct, 1992-93: The report was 
accepted as an informational piece. 
c. 
Update on Senate Bill No. 9192-01: General Education Program: Chair 
Brannon asked Professor Knoblauch to discuss. 
The General Education Committee has been working to implement this Bill, 
reported Professor Knoblauch. The main concern is to recertify some existing 
General Education courses and to implement new ones. The program will go into 
effect Fall 1993. The committee developed a new proposal form that is available in 
the Dean of Undergraduate Studies Office, Professor Knoblauch said, and will be 
sent to depbtment chairs. The committee members are available to discuss the 
-+-~-'-------p-r-op_o_s-al su lliiSSion process to t1:leSCh0018,7colleges. PrOfessor Krioolauch---:::n:-:::o-;:-teo-cd' _____ _ 
3 
that workshops are also scheduled. The committee will also deal with incentives 
and assessment. Professor Knoblauch encourages the Senators to support and to 
stay engaged in this program. 
d. 
Update on Senate Bill No. 8990-29: Assessment Report- University at 
Albany: Chair Brannon asked Dr. Volkwein to discuss. 
Dr. Volkwein briefly discussed an assessment matrix he developed. The categories 
are being given to the University by SUNY Central who would like an annual 
report. Departments were asked to submit academic plans in the majors, which 
were reviewed by EPC. A workshop is being planned for deans and department 
chairs to discuss the plans, said Dr. Volkwein. He also gave the results of a survey 
that was taken last year (results on the last two pages of the handout). Two 
philosophies were found: 1) enhance student learning and growth, which will take 
us to the next level; and 2) students and alumni are our best ambassadors. 
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:40p.m. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Carson Carr, Jr. 
Secretary 
r· 
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE 
COMMITTEE RETREAT 
SEPTEMBER 17-19, 1992 
SUNY CENTRAL 
The meeting on September 17-19 was not a full senate meeting, but 
a meeting of local governance leaders, new senators, and members of 
committees. 
Address by Governor Cuomo (main points) 
1. 
Thinks the coming year will be better economically for SUNY, 
but not much. 
2. 
Can't give SUNY more money, but maybe can do some building. 
Plans to give more flexibility to the university. 
3. 
Taxes. 
Said he won't raise them in NYS, but that the federal 
government must, and give some back to the states. 
4. 
Recognized that SUNY is cut as much as it can be. 
Admits that 
it may be necessary to close a campus. 
5. 
Said that school systems must consolidate (and by implication 
SUNY also). 
Address by Chancellor Johnstone 
Chancellor Johnstone spoke first about financial support from the 
state and the need for advocacy for SUNY. 
The question now is, 
does the legislature know that SUNY is "over the edge"? 
Advocacy for SUNY 
1. 
Know the facts. 
2. 
Know that the system does know where its going. 
3. 
Know the political realities. 
4. 
Insist on access. 
5. 
Stress the pain of SUNY, and that we are "over the edge." 
6. 
Translate this into action: 
write legislators. 
7. 
Beware of the "blame game." 
8. 
Be ready to support and praise our friends. 
9. 
Be ready to support the SUNY system. 
The Chancellor also discussed the nature and work of central 
administration in state systems. 
The 
following points were 
published by the Chancellor in his pamphlet, Studies in Public 
Higher Education (June 1992). 
Responsibilities of System Central Administrations 
1. 
Leadership to the system, to public higher education, and to 
higher education generally, 
including the establishment of 
a 
systemwide mission, the approval of constituent campus missions, 
and advocacy for the needs of the state and its students and 
citizens; 
- ------------· --·-·.- ---.---
2. 
The appointment, compensation, periodic evaluation, occasional 
removal, and constant support of campus or institutional chief 
operating officers; 
3. 
The allocation of resources among the institutions comprising 
the system; 
4. 
The assessment, 
approval, 
initiation, 
and rescission of 
academic programs and research endeavors; 
5. 
Policies and programs to assure student access to the system as 
a whole; 
6. 
The oversight of board and systemwide policies dealing with the 
needs, interests, and behavior of students; 
7. 
Business administration and stewardship over state resources; 
8. 
Information and institutional research; 
9. 
Public relations and advocacy; 
10. Personnel policies, terms and conditions of employment, and (if 
provided by law) collective bargaining; 
11. Legal services and legal representation of the board and of 
staff and faculty acting on behalf of the system; 
12. Consolidation of administrative and academic support services. 
Committee Reports 
The committee reports dealt generally with the issues which were 
thought to be issues of the coming year. 
LCL's: 
Want a database from the Governance Committee for such 
actions as presidential searches. 
Operations: 
What are the demographics of the professoriate, and 
how does it participate in budgeting on the campuses. 
Governance: 
Will work on presidential search handbook, its own 
guidelines, presidential evaluations, and database for presidential 
searches, etc. 
Graduate Committee: 
1) importance of GRI to the SUNY system 
2) academic issues of unionization of graduate students 
3) articulation (esp. between Centers and 2-year schools) 
4) quality of student life 
5) pedagogical training for graduate 
students 
Student Life: 
1) development of student assembly 
2) voting on 
campus 
3) "1st Amendment rights 
4) statements of disciplinary 
actions on transcripts 
5) treatment of disabled students 
6) campus 
community 
7) report on public safety to the chancellor 
Awards: 
new awards and procedures 
Undergraduate Committee: 
1) assessment 
2) entry-level skills 
3) math-skills survey 
4) laws regarding disabled students 
Paul W. Wallace 
-+-~------,S-UJJ-¥-ILa.G-U-l-t-y-S-€Hl-a-t-G-P'----------------------------------
Department of English 
Humanities Building 
Albany, New York 12222 
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY 
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 
Counci 1 on Promotions and Continuing Appointments Report to the Senate 
October 5, 1992 
September 1, 1992 
TO: Prof. Lil Brannon, Chair, 
199~-93 University Senate 
Prof. Ted Turner, Chair, 1991-92 University Senate 
FR: Ronald A. Bosco, Chair, 1991-92 Council on Promotions 
and Continuing Appointment (CPCA) 
RE: summary of CPCA Actions in 1991-92 
518/442-4055 
Fax: 518/442-4599 
Until some years ago, CPCA annually reported its activities to 
the public in the form of a "Summary of Actions" memorandum to 
the University Senate. 
No one seems entirely sure of how, why, 
or when that practice was discontinued; however, as I reported to 
the Senate last Spring, CPCA, by unanimous vote of its 
membership, would reinstate the practice with a summary of its 
actions in 1991-92. 
For the record, the term for CPCA runs from 
September 1 to August 31. 
Between September 1, 1991 and August 31, 1992, CPCA had a 
total of 43 cases entered on its roster. 
Of these, 22 cases 
involved consideration for continuing appd'intrrtent'""'"and '·promotion 
to the rank of Associate Professor. 
These 22 cases were decided 
thus by CPCA: 17 in the affirmative and 4 in the negative, with 
the remaining case withdrawn from the roster prior to CPCA 
review. 
Additionally, 6 cases were presented for continuing 
appointment in rank. 
These 6 cases were decided thus: 5 in the 
affirmative, 1 in the negative. 
Finally, 15 cases were presented 
for persons with continuing appointment for promotion to the rank 
of Associate or Full Professor. 
These 15 cases were decided 
thus: 10 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative, with the 
remaining 3 cases withdrawn or deferred to 1992-93 prior to CPCA 
review. · 
Note: In the representation of CPCA votes above, the terms 
"affirmative" and "negative" indicate simple majority votes. 
Further, cases involving continuing appointment and promotion to 
the rank of Associate Professor require two votes: one on each 
motion. 
Although the exact vote on one or the other motion was 
not always the same in every such case, affirmabive.votes for one 
motion were, in 1991-92, always followed affirmative votes for 
the other motion--and the same was true for negative votes. 
Remove from Council 
Jason Stern, EPC 
COUNCIL CHANGES 
Proposed Additions to Councils 
Seth Leitman, EPC 
Ali Kazim, UAC 
Norbert Zahm, UCC 
--- ------- --~-------- -- ------ --
~-----~~~----~-~~--
-~~ 
~----·- --- ·-
THE UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY 
AS OF JULY 15, 1992 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT CONDUCT 
FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 1991-92 
Types of 
# of 
Not 
cases 
-----Penalty-----
Infraction 
cases 
Responsible* Pending 
suspend 
Prob Notes 
Cheating 
21 
10 
0 
11 
0 
Plagiarism 
10 
0 
0 
9 
1 
Other 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1991-92 Subtotal 
31 
10 
0 
20 
1 
1990-91 Subtotal 
17 
4 
2 
11 
0 
1989-90 Subtotal 
10 
0 
0 
7 
3 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
Harassment 
3· 
1 
0 
0 
2 
Forgery/Fraud 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
Falsification 
4 
0 
0 
0 
4 
1991-92 Subtotal 
8 
1 
0 
1 
6 
1990-91 Subtotal 
9 
0 
0 
6 
3 
1989-90 Subtotal 
8 
0 
0 
2 
6 
TOTAL 1991-92 
39 
11 
0 
21· 
7 
TOTAL 1990-91 
26 
4 
2 
17 
3 
TOTAL 1989-90 
18 
0 
0 
9 
9 
*Includes cases withdrawn, dismissed or not guilty verdict 
Cases Pending = 2'students withdrew from the University prior to case 
resolution. 
----------------
Prepared by Judicial Affairs, 
Office of the Vice President 
for Student Affairs 
July 15, 1992 
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY 
UNIVERSITY SENATE 
1992-93 Meeting Schedule 
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 
UNIVERSITY SENATE 
3:30p.m.-- AD 253 
September 21, 1992 
October 26 
November 30 
February 8, 1993 
March29 
3:30p.m.-- Assembly Hall 
October 5, 1992 
November 16 
December 7 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
(Nominations, 1993-94 
Chair-Elect & Secretary) 
Secretary) 
March 1, 1993 
April12 
(Elections, 1993-94 
Chair-Elect & 
Apri119 
May3 
9a.m. 
10a.m. 
11 a.m. 
LISC 
CAFE 
ucc 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
1993-94 Senate Organizational Meeting 
May 3, 1993 
3:00p.m. 
Assembly Hall 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
1993-94 Council Organizational Meetings 
May 4, 1993 
EPC 
CPCA 
RES 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
Faculty Forum 
Wednesday, November 4, 1992 (3:30p.m.)-- Assembly Hall 
Wednesday, Apri114, 1993 (3:30p.m.)-- Assembly Hall 
UAC 
GAC 
SAC 
All matters requiring action or review by the Senate and the Executive Committee should be 
submitted to the Senate Recorder two weeks prior to the appropriately scheduled meeting. 
Faculty Meetings 
Wednesday, September 9, 1992 
(2:30 p.m. reception; 3:00p.m. meeting) 
Campus Center Ballroom 
Wednesday, May 5, 1993 
(2:30p.m. reception; 3:00p.m. meeting) 
Campus Center Ballroom 
---·-------- ---- -----
OITicc ol' the President 
Administration 246 
i\Jhany, New York 12222 
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY 
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 
September 17, 1992 
TO: 
Members of the University Senate 
FROM: 
President H. Patrick Swygert~~ 
SUBJECT: 
Commencement 
51 X/442-5400 
Fax: 51 H/442-5418 
According to University Senate Bill 9091-01, administrative responsibility for 
Commencement belongs to the President who develops a plan for the Commencement 
ceremony each year in consultation with faculty, staff, the Educational Policy Council, 
and the senior class. The bill also specifies that the President inform the Senate of the 
plan for the upcoming Commencement at the first or second meeting of the academic 
year. 
I am pleased to report to the Senate that the University will continue in 1993 its 
practice for the last two years of holding a University-wide Commencement ceremony 
at the Knickerbocker Arena, followed by individual School and College events at sites 
throughout the University. The 149th Commencement will be held on Sunday, May 16, 
1993, at 10 a.m.; School/College events will be scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. 
Report on the 1992 Commencement 
The 148th Commencement of this institution was held on May 17, 1992. 
Attendance by graduates was high -- nearly 70 doctoral candidates, 250 master's 
candidates, and about 2,000 bachelor's candidates filled the floor seats of the 
Knickerbocker Arena. More than 12,000 guests also attended the ceremony as did 
approximately 150 University faculty. University staff members with official duties 
numbered more than 100. 
Honorary degrees were awarded to two individuals -- Catherine Stimpson, 
University Professor and Dean of the Graduate School/New Brunswick/Vice Provost 
for Graduate Education, Rutgers University; and D. Allan Bromley, Assistant to the 
President for Science and Technology and Chair of the President's Council of Advisors 
on Science and Technology Policy_. Dr. Bro:rnJ~y _oi[eJ'~dJhe Coiilllle_Qcement Address._ ___ _ 
Parent and student attendance was again strong at the School/College events 
due to good planning and notification by School/College Deans and staffs. 
Use of the Knickerbocker Arena continues to be a very cost-efficient approach 
to Commencement for the University. The expenses incurred for rental, security, and 
other services remained at the same level as in 1991 (which was approximately 
2 
50 percent less than the cost of the multiple-ceremony commencements held in 1991). 
Traffic, parking, crowd management and other logistical issues were smoother than our 
first time around and generally problem-free. 
Student behavior at Commencement was restless at times, boisterous at times, 
but generally acceptable. Security staff did not attend as carefully as we asked to 
controlling access between the floor and the spectator seats, which contributed to some 
distracting noise and movement. This issue will be given special attention in 1993. 
And, of course, there were the ubiquitous beach balls. My office received seven letters 
regarding the ceremony: two from faculty praising it; and five from family members, 
four complaining about student behavior, one complaining about all aspects of the 
ceremony. 
In the coming year, I would like to engage the Deans and the Educational Policy 
Council in a discussion of steps that can be taken to improve student behavior and to 
increase faculty investment in Commencement. 
cc: 
Council of Deans 
Senate Executive Committee 
( 
( 
( 
Office of the President 
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY 
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 
September 14, 1992 
To The University Community: 
Administration 246 
Albany, New York 12222 
518/442-5400 
Fax: 518/442-5418 
I am pleased to announce that once again this year, the University at Albany seeks proposals 
for Affirmative Action Grants, a special program designed to help increase our effectiveness 
in more fully realizing important aspirations of the University. I hope you will read the 
announcement carefully and accept the invitation to submit a grant proposal. 
The University at Albany has made important strides in recent years in increasing 
opportunities for minorities and other protected classes. This program will build on those 
successes. 
Attachment 
Sincerely, 
;; 
1 
O 
-t}j~;#~ 
H. Patrick Swygert 
President 
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY 
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GRANTS 
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSALS 
In order to promote the goals of affirmative action at the University at Albany, funds are 
being made available for a special program of competitive grants. Proposals are being 
sought for creative, innovative, and results-oriented projects aimed at recruiting, retaining, 
and supporting protected class persons at the Universi~ at Albany. "Protected class" 
persons include minorities, women, people with disabilities, and Vietnam era veterans. 
Any department, program, office, committee, group, or individual may apply. Particular 
attention will be given to proposals that: 1) come from academic units; 2) are directed 
toward African American and Hispanic American students and faculty; and 3) originate in 
areas of the University that do not serve protected class persons as their primary assigned 
responsibility. 
The number of grants awarded and the amount for each will depend on the quality of 
applications received. Typical awards will range from $500 to $1,000, but higher or lower 
amounts may be requested. 
In most instances these grants are not intended to fund ongoing activites, but rather to 
enourage new ideas and projects. 
The deadline for applications is November23, 1992. The recipients of the awards will be 
announced during Spring Semester 1993. 
Proposals should include: 
1. 
A one- or two-page single-spaced narrative that: 
a. describes the project, 
b. states how the project will further affirmative action goals, 
c. presents a timeframe for planning and implementing the project, 
d. lists individuals involved and their qualifications, 
e. lists in-kind services, if any, and 
f. outlines guidelines for evaluation of the project. 
2. 
An itemized budget noting when funds will be expended. Lump sum budgets cannot 
be considered. 
The University Commission for Affirmative Action will review the proposals and make their 
recommendations to the President. Please submit proposals to: 
Gloria DeSole 
Senior Advisor to the President 
for Affirmative Action and Employment Planning 
University at Albany 
Administration 301 
Albany, NY 12222 
( 
( 
( 
.'• 
Senate Bill 9192-01 
UNIVERSITY SENATE 
UNIVERSITY AT ALABNY, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 
General Education Program 
INTRODUCED BY: Undergraduate Academic Council 
December 16th, 1991 
IT IS HEREBY PROPOSED THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ADOPTED: 
I. That the attached General Education Program be adopted . 
. ·. 
II. That the implementation for this revision be effective 
for all students matriculating at the University in the Fall 
1993 semester and thereafter. 
III. That this bill be referred to the President for 
approval and implementation . 
.. ,,_:!:·~·. 
Proposed Gen. Ed. Legislation 
I. Size and Scope of the Program 
1. The General Education requirement includes 24 credits 
distributed over the following categpries of instruction: 
Humanities and the Arts--2 courses 
Social Sciences--2 courses 
Natural Sciences--2 courses 
Cultural and Historical Perspectives--1 course 
Human Diversity--1 course 
2. It also includes two courses of writing-intensive 
instruction. 
II. Administration 
1. The Dean of Undergraduate Studies is responsible for 
administering General Education and will have sufficient staff 
and resources to meet responsibilities for advisement, course 
approvals, assessment, faculty and curricular development, 
training of TAs, faculty incenti yes, ., . .,,Wd program advertising. 
2. A standing Committee on General Education will assist 
the Dean on matters of advisement, course approvals, assessment, 
and program development. Its membership should include a core of 
arts and science faculty, representatives from CUE and UAC, and 
one undergraduate student. The Committee should begin its work 
immediately, in anticipation of a substantial project of 
redesigning and re-registering gen. ed. courses. 
3. Course proposals originate in departments and Colleges, 
pass through appropriate College curriculum committees, and are 
reviewed by the General Education Committee. The Dean of 
Undergraduate studies and the Gen. Ed. Committee are responsible 
for insuring that the values and criteria of the program are 
clearly represented in new proposals. Each College is responsible 
to insure that proposals are tailored specifically to the goals 
of general education. 
4. Evaluation of the curriculum is the responsibility of 
the Dean of Undergraduate studies. It will include, yearly, both 
survey and course-specific measures. The Dean of Undergraduate 
studies can recommend deregistering a gen. ed. course judged to 
__,_~~-----be-i::l~n-re-s-po-n-s--i-v-e-te-eh-e-CJ·e-a-J:-s-e-:f-ehe-rrr-el§"-ra-m.-..---------------
(5) Advisement policy will be coordinated by the Dean of 
Undergraduate studies in consultation with CUE, Admissions, EOP, 
Registrar, Summer Sessions, and individual departments. Specific 
policy guidelines will be implemented uniformly across all 
advisement centers. The guidelines should address the purposes of 
gen. ed., timing of courses in student schedules, connections 
between gen. ed. and the selection of major, waiver policies, and 
other relevant information. students should be advised to include 
gen. ed. courses in their schedules as early as they can, ideally 
during their first two years. A rigorous waiver policy should be 
developed to insure the integrity of the program. 
III. Program Categories and Criteria 
1. The bulletin description of the program will read as 
follows: 
The General Education Program of the University at Albany 
promotes 
breadth, coherence, critical inquiry, and public 
responsibility in the intellectual life of every undergraduate 
student. 
--It promotes breadth through a distribution of courses in 
the humanities, the natural sciences, and the social sciences. 
--It promotes coherence by emphasizing historical, social, 
aesthetic, and philosophical contexts that shape knowledge and 
culture. 
· '<""'"" 
--It promotes critical inquiry into the assumptions, goals, 
and methods of various academic fields of study. 
--It promotes public responsibility by emphasizing cultural 
pluralism, human diversity, a respect for difference, and a 
commitment to civic dialogue. 
In addition, general education aims to develop the reasoning 
abilities, th~ writing, reading, and computational· abilities, the 
interpretive, analytic, and synthesizing abilities, central to 
the intellectual life of the University. 
The majority of General Education courses are at the 100 and 200 
level. students are encouraged to complete the requirements in 
their first two years. 
The program includes four interrelated kinds of courses: 
(1) those intended to introduce the variety of disciplines 
comprising a university; 
(2) those intended to promote understanding of the diversity 
~~~----------~o~f~stio~c~J~·a~J~graups and practices in American society; 
----------~--(3) those intended to promote understanding of the world's 
cultural diversity and histor1cal change; 
(4) those intended to develop writing abilities as a means 
of composing, learning, and sharing disciplinary knowledge. 
courses in the Disciplines (18 credits) 
Students complete two courses in each of the following 
categories: Humanities and the Arts, Social Sciences, and Natural 
Sciences. Approved courses have these features: 
--they offer general, non-specialized introduction to central 
topics in a discipline or interdisciplinary field; while they may 
satisfy major or minor requirements, their special purpose is to 
serve students who do not intend to pursue more advanced work; 
--they encourage reflectiveness about disciplinary knowledge, 
aesthetic discernment, reasoned inquiry, andjor a particular 
discipline's aims, methods, history, differences from other 
disciplines, and intellectual or aesthetic assumptions; they 
explain what it means to be a practitioner of a discipline; they 
convey e-xplicit rather than tacit understanding of the nature of 
a discipline; 
--they attend, a~ appropriate, to reasoning andfor aesthetic 
aptitudes, to reading, writing, and computational abilities, and 
to the multiple perspectives of a pluralistic culture both within 
and beyond the university. 
Courses in Human Diversity (3 credits) 
(As described in the current Bulletin.] 
Courses in Cultural and Historical Perspectives (3 credits) 
Approved courses involve students in the study of cultures, 
civilizations, or geographic regions as they change through time, 
providing students with knowledge of various critical approaches 
to interpreting history and with an understanding of diverse 
cultural yantage points and worldviews. 
Writing-Intensive Courses {6 credits) 
[As described in the current Bulletin.) 
IV. Course Approvals and Curricular Experiments 
----------------------------------
1. Courses submitted to the General Education Committee 
should explain in detail how their content, instructional 
'I 
! 
;&'f'M~ 
J 
!" 
I 
' l--
-
methods, and assignments satisfy the goals and stated criteria of 
the program. Syllabi of those courses, likewise, should make 
clear to students how classwork relates to the goals of the 
program. Course assessment will ultimately be tied to student 
awareness of how gen. ed. values are realized in particular 
courses. 
2. The majority of non-writing-intensive gen. ed. courses 
should be listed at the 100 and 200 level. Courses at the 400-
level (aside from writing-intensive) are inappropriate for the 
gen. ed. curriculum. 
3. Colleges and departments are encouraged to experiment 
with new curricular possibilities, including cross-disciplinary 
core courses, capstone courses, disciplinary introductions, and 
courses in the epistemologies of different disciplines or groups 
of disciplines. 
4. Nothing in the gen. ed. legislation should be seen as 
discouraging the development of additional University 
requirements, such as language competence, mathematical 
reasoning, or public speaking, which might later be appended to 
that legislation or stand outside it. 
V. Departmental and Faculty Incentives 
1. Departments should not be discouraged by staffing 
formulas or other administrative signals from developing 100 and 
200 level gen. ed. courses or from committing full-time faculty 
to gen. ed. instruction. 
2. Departments with proven commitments to gen. ed. should 
receive appropriate resource incentives. 
3. Faculty, especially those without tenure, who undertake 
gen. ed. (including writing-intensive) instruction in the face of 
well-known professional disincentives must be protected and 
rewarded for their commitment. Options include the following: 
(a) Merit pay increases specifically for gen. ed. 
service. Some percentage of the University's pool of merit 
resources could be provided to the Dean of Undergraduate studies 
for appropriate distribution. 
(b) Released time at the conclusion of a specified· 
term of service, say four semesters. 
(c) Teaching awards. 
_____________________ (~) Letters of achievement from the Dean of 
Undergraduate Studies andjor the Academic Vice-President for 
inclusion in tenure and promotion files. 
(e) Explicit reference in tenure and promotion 
guidelines to the importance given to gen. ed. service under the 
category of teaching excellence. 
VI: Faculty and Program Development 
1. Departments and Colleges should encourage continuing 
discussion of the means and ends of general education instruction 
through seminars or other conversations designed to attract and 
prepare new faculty, design new courses, and improve teaching. 
2. The Dean of Undergraduate Studies should have resources 
to spread information about the goals of the program, its most 
successful courses, the new initiatives it is developing, the 
needs it may have for additional courses, and the on-going 
discussions of gen. ed. faculty. 
· 
Appendix: Transition to the New General Education Program 
1. The current program will be suspended as of fall, 1993. 
2. All present gen. ed. courses, except writing-intensive 
and those in Human Diversity, should be reviewed within 
departments and college curriculum committees in light of the new 
legislation. After appropriate reconsideration, course proposals 
should be submitted to the General Education Committee during the 
1992-93 academic year. Given the reduced number of seats required 
for the new program, emphasis should be on the quality, not the 
quantity, of submitted courses. 
f· ------------------------------------------------
/ 
.1__ 
UNIVERSITY SENATE 
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY 
STATE UNIVERSITY AT NEW YORK 
Assessment Report- University at Albany 
INTRODUCED BY: Council on Educational Policy 
DATE: 
April 18, 1990 
IT IS HEREBY PROPOSED: 
Bill 8990-29 
I. 
That the report of the Assessment Panel submitted to, amended and approved by 
the Council on Educational Policy be adopted as the University's Assessment Plan. 
II. 
That this plan be forwarded to the President for approvaL 
··'l'c'''' 
-----------------------------------------------------------
University at Albany 
REPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT PANEL 
March 29, 1990 
AS AMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY 
APRIL 18, 1990 
, ... ·;'·C·•-
Assessment Panel Members: 
Lilian Brannon (Chair) - English 
John Aronson- Chemistry 
Cynthia Fox- French 
Rodney Hart -Student Affairs 
Andrea Hoffer- (Student Association) 
William Holstein - School of Business 
Alice J acklet - Biology 
Peter Johnston- Reading 
Sara Kavner - (student member of EPC) 
Marvin Krohn - Sociology 
Ronald Ley - Educ. Psychology 
Betty Shadrick - EOP 
Malcolm Sherman- Math 
Ex Officio 
Bruce Marsh- Chair, EPC 
Warren l1chman - Academic Affairs 
Staff S!JlXX>rt 
Fred Volkwein- Institutional 
Research 
Barbara Schoonmaker- Student Affairs 
Gail Richardson- Academic Affairs 
Leonard Slade 
African & Afro-American Studies 
_;_~J# ____ 
R_ic_h_a_r~d_T--=e--=e_va::.:..:n~---=P--=s".!:'._y-=-c::_:_ho=-:l:...=o~gy~-------------------------
I 
) 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
INTRODUCTION ............................................. . 
ATTAINMENT IN THE UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 
ASSESSING GENERAL EDUCATION AND INTELLECTUAL GROWTH ........ 5 
PERSONAL/SOCIAL ASSESSMENT................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 
BASIC SKILLS ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
7 
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 
Doc. #18691 
_:_. L _____________________ 
_ 
I 
I 
INTRODUCTION 
The Basis for the Assessment Panel's Recommendations 
President O'Leary appointed this panel in the Fa\! of 1989 to propose a 
comprehensive plan for assessment in four areas: basic skills, general education, 
attainment in the major, and personal and social growth. This report and its thirteen 
recommendations respond to the President's charge. We spent the academic year 
examining the nature of teaching and learning and student growth on this campus. 
While this report represents the product of our work during 1989-90, it builds on the 
work of the 1988-89 Committee on Evaluation Policy. That Committee's AprH 1988 
report (see Appendix A) provides the foundation and the context on which this report 
and its recommendations are based. 
Additional source documents gave shape to our work. Joseph C. Burke 
~;# 
addressed a memorandum to campus Presidents in December 1988. The SUNY 
! 
~ 
Provost called for the formulation of outcomes assessment plans, provided a 
philosophical defense of campus based assessment aimed at improving undergraduate 
education, and issued helpful guidelines (see Appendix B). We also found 
encouragement from the "Statement of Principles on Student Outcomes Assessment" 
developed by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant 
Colleges. (See Appendix C). Finally, a recent journal article by Patrick Terenzini, 
"Assessment with Open Eyes: Pitfalls in Studying Student Outcomes," proved to be a 
rich source of wisdom (Appendix D). 
----------------~----------~== 
- 1 -
ATT AlNMENT lN THE UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR 
Educational assessment gives us at least some insight into the complex cognitive and 
social processes by which students come to know a subject. Any one kind of assessment 
must always be seen as part of a complex web of understanding_ that a faculty generates 
through its practices of teaching and evaluating student progress and performance. 
Multiple measures provide more useful and valid indicators of student development than 
any single measure, such as a grade in a course. Our proposed plan for assessment in the 
major must be connected to a comprehensive departmental plan of self study, one that 
enhances our interest in the intellectual lives of our students as they relate to our own 
practices, course offerings, and course sequences within the disciplines. 
This plan for assessment, then, augments our habitual ways of assessing students' 
progress within a major by asking that as a faculty we regularly renect on, and if 
necessary act on, our evaluation of students' progress in constructing their knowledge of a 
discipline. This panel believes additional forms of assessment in the major are necessary 
because our two currently dominant means of assessment do not give us a complete 
understanding of our work with students, nor dothey require that we discuss ways of 
revising our curriculum in order to strengthen student achievement. First, one widespread 
form of assessment, program reviews, gives us only a broad measure of our programs' and 
departments' needs and intellectual viability. While we profit from them, program 
reviews are more summative than formative, more oriented toward external 
accountability than toward internal program enhancement. Our second mode of 
assessment, student grades in specific courses, gives us only individual faculty estimates 
of student performance in a particular course, not a comprehensive view of student · 
achievement in our discipline. The assessment plan proposed here offers a more diverse 
and effective approach, one that is locally important, that departments compose for 
themselves, and that aims to stimulate conversation, thought, and action on matters 
pertaining to strengthening the undergraduate curriculum. Assessment in this context 
means the continual audit of our educational practices with the aim of enhancing the 
teaching and learning of a discipline. We suspect that the best assessment wm serve 
multiple purposes, evaluating both the student and the curriculum. This panel, then, has 
designed this plan for the twin purposes of becoming more accountable to ourselves and 
improving the impact we have on our students. 
Recommended Assessment Plan in the Undergraduate Major 
Recommendation 1: Each department or program should be required to construct a 
means for evaluating student attainment in the undergraduate major. We offer seven 
assessment alternatives for departments to consider. In so doing, we endorse the 
philosophy contained in last year's Report to the EPC: Stating educational objectives is a 
necessary Erst step in measuring student attainment. Before assessment can be fu11y 
effective, departments will need to articulate what it is they expect their graduates to 
know and understirx:l and what students can be expected to do with that knowledge. 
RecommendatiQP 2: 
During Fall 1990, departments should review their goals for the 
major and develop assessment plans based on those goals. A budget for the development 
of a final assessment plan should be submitted to the Academic Vice President, along with 
a timetable for implementation. For example, funds could be requested to S1.t!JiX>rt 
departments who wish to develop their own comprehensive exam or to pilot test the ETS 
Major Field Achievement Test. Other departments could receive an additional TA to 
coordinate the development of senior portfolios and essays. During the Spring Semester 
1991, pilot assessments should be undertaken and evaluated. Final plans for departmental 
outcomes assessment can be revised during Fall 1991. 
-2-
i-
J 
The foliowing assessmen: alternatives are co:~structec to offer a b:oaC: :-ange of 
possi~ie assessment designs. ln some departments where the numbers of majo:s are sma:~. 
the faculty might choose to focus on the achievement of all students. Other departments. 
perhaps with large numbers of majors, may decide to study representative groups of 
students.The aim of this assessment is not to mat:nify any particular student's success or 
failure. but rather to judge in whatever ways we can the interdependence between 
students' abilities to construct knowledge for themselves and our work as a facu1ty in 
nurturing, enhancing, and enabling those abilities. Our assessment goal is to ask faculty to 
examine what it is that students are acquiring when they major in a particular discipline 
and to use that information to enhance the \earning experience for future students. 
Plan 1: Senior Thesis/Research Project 
Several departments at Albany already require that all their seniors, or in many 
cases only honors students, complete a senior thesis or research project. We recommend 
that departments with this requirement for some students expand it to others and that 
where feasible, other departments and programs consider this option. Such a requirement 
encourages students to use the tools of the discipline on a focused task. as the culmination 
of their undergraduate academic experience. Under ideal conditions, each department or 
program uses the students' work to reflect on what students are achieving with the aim of 
evaluating, and if necessary strengthening, the curriculum and experiences of students 
within that major. 
Plan 2: Performance Experience 
In some fields it is appropriate to ask. students to demonstrate in some practical, or 
even public way, the knowledge and skills they have learned and acquired. Such a 
requirement may be especially fitting in professional and performing arts fields. Examples 
include student recitals, exhibitions, practice teaching, and supervised field experiences. 
The emphasis should be on the integration of the separate facets of the academic major. 
Plan 3: Capstone Course 
In this plan, departments require a "capstone" course designed to int~gr~te,~he study 
of their discipline. A few departments at Albany now have such a course, and it often has 
a heavy research and writing component. Such courses offer ideal opportunities both to 
assess student learning and to strengthen the curriculum of that major. 
Plan 4: Comprehensive Exam 
Assessment in the major on some campuses has taken the form of comprehensive 
exams administered to all seniors. When such exams are designed locally by the faculty, 
they have the advantage of being shaped to fit the department,s curriculum. 
Departmental exams have the disadvantages of needing annual revision by the faculty, of 
requiring local scoring, and of lacking a comparison group. Standardized instruments 
provide more reliable and valid comparison groups and scoring services, but may or may 
not fit the department 1s curriculum, and are not useful in disciplines wishing to go beyond 
a multiple choice format. 
Some campuses use the GRE Advanced Test to measure student attainment in the 
major. This is not generally recommended by most assessment researchers because the 
comparison group is graduate school applicants, rather than all senior.~ •.• 9n¢ because the 
GRE tests give only relative, rather than absolute scores (Le., there is no indication of the 
number of items correct and incorrect, only an indication of each student,s score relative 
to others). 
-3-
Working with faculty across the country. ETS has destgned achievement tests . .,.,hie:--. 
are recommended for departmental assessment purposes. Available in 15 fields of study. 
the "Major Field Achievement Tests" provide subfie\d scores as we\\ as totals and may be 
of some interest to departments which wa:n to try this approach. ln addition, the 
professional associations in some fields, such as chemistry, physics, and education. have 
developed or are developing comprehensive exams for use by campuses. Departments 
might wish to investigate their suitability. 
Plan 5: Student Portfolio 
Under this option, a portfolio of student work is collected, analyzed, and discussed. 
In this mode of assessment, students collect systematically the work that they have 
completed in their study of a discipline. They undertake and write a self-examination of 
the material, demonstrating how they have constructed the discipline through their writing 
and thinking over two years of study. Afterwards, faculty meet with students to go over 
this portfolio. The faculty then could use their own and the students' analyses of 
portfolios, coupled with their perceptions of the student conferences, as bases for 
conversation among faculty about the curriculum and practices within a discipline. ln 
departments selecting this option, all faculty responsible for undergraduate education 
should be a part of this process, but the plan becomes difficu1t to implement if each 
faculty member has to interview overly large numbers of students (three to five students 
is a reasonable number). 
Plan 6: Senior Essay and Interview 
Many departments we·contacted would like more qualitative information from their 
seniors.. Grades in courses and student responses to multiple choice questions do not 
· 
provide the desired breadth of information about student performance. On the other hand, 
large departments might find the qualitatively rich construction and review of student 
portfolios to be too arduous. Accordingly, we recommend that departments consider the 
possibility of requiring a short senior essay which works roughly as fo11ows: The faculty 
construct probing questions that ask students to demonstrate their conceptual 
understanding of the discipline, and to reflect upon the strengths and weaknesses of their 
programs at Albany. (See Appendix E for sample questions.) The students respond in 
writing and subsequently meet with faculty to discuss their written statements. The 
faculty, then, meets to discuss the results of their conferences with students for the 
purpose of strengthening the major. Large departments may sample a cross-section of 
seniors rather than the entire population. The Panel suggests that all departmental 
faculty responsible for undergraduate education be part of the process, but that no one 
faculty member needs to be asked to interview large numbers of students (three to five 
students seems reasonable). 
If a large department should decide to use a cross-section of students, some steps 
might be taken to compensate students for the extra work involved in the assessment. In 
this way the students would be giving their best efforts and would not see this procedure 
as an unfair add-on. An alternative might be to require all seniors to write the essay but 
only a stratified random sample would be interviewed. All essays could be filed in 
department or university folders and used as a resource for career advisement and 
reference letters. 
Plan 7: Departmental Alternative 
Finally, departments may propose their own alternative plan for assessment in the 
major which meets the approval of the Council on Educational Policy. Alternative plans 
might combine some of the elements discussed above, or might include a new idea, not 
cons1dered by the Commi 
-4-
ASSESSING GENERAL EDUCATiON AND INTELLECTUAL GRO'v\'TH 
The assessment of general education skills and other measures of intellectual growth 
among Albany students has been based almost entirely on self-reported responses to a 
series of items developed by Patrick Terenz\ni and now used at a variety of colleges across 
the country. As noted in last year's report to the EPC, the Albany campus has been a 
leader in developing these measures, and Assessment Reports #2, #4, and #6, published by 
the Office of Institutional Research, each investigates various aspects of general 
education outcomes among Albany students. 
Support for the Albany outcomes approach (i.e., student self-reported measures) has 
been reinforced by two educational research discoveries. First, Robert Pace, a 
distinguished researcher at UCLA, found a correlation between student self-reported 
measures of their own growth and their growth measured by other more objective (and 
more expensive) means. The evidence is that self-reported measures are only moderately 
reliable for an individual student but highly reliable for groups of students such as 
freshmen, transfers, seniors. women and minorities. Second, a recent nationally funded 
multi-campus study of college students in the State of Washington casts doubts on the 
value of the existing national instruments which purport to measure general education skill 
attainment and student growth. The researchers conclude that the current outcomes tests 
published by ETS and ACT primarily measure verbal and quantitative aptitude and the 
results essentially reiterate what is already known from student course grades and 
admissions test data. 
This background, then, shaped the Panel's attitude toward assessing general 
education at Albany. On the one hand, our existing studies of freshman-to-senior-year 
cohorts using self-reported general education scales constitute adequate, if not ideal, 
measures of student growth and intellectual attainment. On the other hand, our General 
Education Curriculum is in a state of re-evaluation and transition. 
. 
We believe there exists a faculty consensus that the General Education Curriculum 
at Albany, while sound in design, needs improved implementation. During the Fall of 1988, 
two committees, the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Advisory Council and the Curriculum 
Committee of the Undergraduate Academic Council, began discussions concerning the 
evaluation and possible revision of the general education program. In March 1990, the 
President appointed a special task force, comprised of members of these two committees, 
a representative from the Assessment Panel, and representatives from the university at 
large to conduct a complete evaluation of the general education program and make 
recomrnend2tions by the Spring of 1991 for its continuance or revision. New initiatives for 
assessing student growth in General Education skills seem pointless in the face of a major 
program reevaluation and in the absence of clearlv articulated program goals. However, 
the current mode of assessment using self reported measures should continue as a point of 
reference .for examining the impact of future changes. 
Recommendation 3: Continue the existing studies of student intellectual growth, using 
self-reported responses to scales administered to freshmen and transfer cohorts every four 
years. A more complete General Education Assessment Plan should await the completion 
of the General Education Task Force's fmal report. 
I 
J 
·, 
PERSONALISOClAL ASSESSMENT 
Last year's Assessment Report to the EPC noted the continuing efforts to measure 
the growth and maturity and sausfaction of Albany students over the past dozen years. 
Our studies of freshmen, transfers, seniors. and alumni have given the University a good 
deal of self-reported information from our stuoems and graduates. The students we know 
the least about are those who leave the institution. We need to administer both exit 
interviews and satisfaction surveys to students who indicate their intention to 
withdraw and/or do not reenroll for subsequent semesters. These activities will be in 
addition to ongoing student assessment activities which will be enhanced this year to 
include an examination of several non-cognitive variables as predictors of retention, 
academic performance and growth. 
In recognition of the institution's need to track student attrition and to collect and 
analyze data to support enrollment management retention efforts, the University recently 
brought together within one office retention-related functions which had previously been 
carried out in three different locations bv three different units. The resulting Office of 
Withdrawal and Reentry will be situated ·in the Campus Center as a constituent unit within 
the Department of Student Services. Its immediate charge is not only to assist students 
who find it necessary to depart (short- or long-term) from the University and to facilitate 
their reentry, but also to ''collect, analyze, and distribute data regarding student 
withdrawals, leaves of absence, reentry and degrees in absentia for use in institutional 
assessment, policy-making, and enrollment management." l 
Recommendation 4: 
The University should develop an exit interview and/or survey, and, 
to the extent possible, administer it to each student who declares an intention to leave. 
Information to be determined from this instrument should at a minimum include the 
reason(s), primary and otherwise, for taking leave; whether the leave is temporary or 
permanent; and, if temporary, the expected date of return; other information can be 
collected for improving campus programs and planning. 
Recommendation 5: 
Active measures need to be taken to identify, as early as possible, 
continuing students who are "no shows" for their next eligible semester of study; to 
categorize them appropriately as leaves or withdrawals; and to administer the survey 
noted above. Attempts by telephone or mail should be made to obtain similar information 
from those students for whom an exit interview is not possible or feasible. 
R~mmendation 6: 
Incentives (and/or sanctions) should be developed to reduce the 
number of students who leave without formally withdrawing or who fail to respond to 
these requests for information. 
· 
Recommendation 7: Staff from Institutional Research and from the research unit within 
the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs need to be consulted on the 
development, administration and compilation of data from this process. In turn, findings 
need to be widely shared with appropriate governance and administrative bodies and tied 
closely to campus planning processes. 
-6-
I 
J 
BASIC SKILLS ASSESSMENT 
lntrocluction 
Basic Skills Assessment aims to determine whether students, in the opinion of 
faculty, possess a threshold level of skills necessary for success in college; and if not, 
whether instructional services can be prov1ded for those who need them. Therefore, 
faculty must first define what is "basic" before determining the nature of suppo:-t 
services. Yet defining a "basic skill" for this Panel proved more difficult than we \nitia:ly 
thought. For example, common definitions of what count as basic skills seem to involve 
reading, writing and rna th. However, in the university setting, it is not clear that these 
are always easily separated from content knowledge. It is unquestionably easier to write 
well on a topic which is well understood, and similarly easier to read material which 
relates to relatively familiar concepts. ln addition, what kind of performance counts as 
"basic" is determined, at least in part, by the demands placed on students by course 
instructors and by the support provided to help them meet those demands. The 
recommendations of this panel, then, developed out of our understanding of what the 
faculty consider to be students' necessary prior knowledge and skill before entering 
beginning level courses and our understanding of the support services available to assist 
students who fail to meet this threshold level. Our recommendations, therefore, must be 
seen in the light of the diverse array of instructional support services supplied on campus 
for students who feel that they need academic support. Educational Opportunity (EOP) 
students, indeed, are admitted to the university contingent on their using many of these 
services. The academic support for basic skills include the following: 
1. 
Collegiate Science and Technology Entry Program (C-Step). Sponsored by the 
Department of Student Services, and aimed at underrepresented students moving 
toward careers in scientific, technical and health-related fields, this program 
provides tutoring, study groups, counseling, seminars, workshops, field trips, and 
graduate school test preparation. 
2. 
Minority Assistants Program. The Minority Student Services Office arranges 
tutorial assistance for those who need it. In addition there is a Residential Life 
Program which helps students of color develop peer support networks. 
3. 
Educational Opportunities Program (EOP). This program provides counseling, 
developmental courses in reading, writing, math and science, and personal growth 
workshops. 
4. 
Mathematics Tutoring Program. Staffed by graduate students in the Department of 
Mathematics, this lab provides one-on-one help with the entry level math courses 
including pre-calculus and calculus. 
5. 
Writing Center. Provides one-on-one help with any type of writing project at any 
stage of development. The lab is staffed by faculty and students in the English 
Department. 
6. 
Chemistry Tutoring Program. Staffed by graduate students from the Department of 
Chemistry, support is provided for students in Chemistry 120, 121, and 216. 
7. 
Biology Tutorihg Program. Provides assistance for students in Biology 110 and 111. 
8. 
The lab is staffed by graduate students in Biology and provides tutorial assistance as 
well as review sessions. This lab has just been introduced and is in the trial stages. 
Physics Learning Center. T~enter provides tlJtoring in P~h'-'-y_,_si~c=s_,_. __________ _ 
-7-
9. 
Study Group Plan. Instructional Se:vices helps organize stucy g;oups for man~· f:rs: 
and second year courses. Each stu.:y group is pro,·ided with a facilitator and two 
undergraduate honors student tutors who can also provide individual assistance on 
occasion. 
10. 
Middle Earth. This program provides counselling and workshop packets for staff or 
sn:dents to provide assistance with study skills. This is a volulnteer organiza1ion of 
students helping students, located in the Health & Counseling Services Building. 
11. 
Studying and note-taking workshops are also provided through the Office of 
Academic Support Services. 
An increasing number and diversity of students avail themselves of these services. 
For example, the study group program has been in operation for only two years, and the 
number of students using it r.as doubled to 550. The University has in place advisement 
services and an "Academic Early Warning Program," in which professors participating in 
the Study Group Program develop a list of students at risk of faiHng and circulate it to the 
Center for Undergraduate Education advisors, EOP Counselors, and Student Services 
Officers who contact the student and help arrange for support. It appears, however, that 
there is room for improvement in the coordination among these programs and in their 
advertisement. Many faculty and students appear unaware of the diversity of available 
programs. Steps should be taken to inform faculty and students about the available 
support services. 
Students enter the University at Albany through several different routes, bringing 
different histories with respect to basic skills. The majority of students enter the 
University through the regular admissions procedures. A second group of students enters 
through the Educational Opportunity Program. These students are different from the 
mainstream students in terms of their educational and economic histories. A third major 
group of students transfers to the campus from other colleges and universities bringing yet 
another, perhaps more heterogeneous, set of educational experiences to their course work. 
Reading 
EOP Students. By virtue of the nature of their admission to the university, Educational 
Opportunity students present themselves with potential difficulties in the area of reading. 
These students enter with an average total SAT score of 790. The EOP program uses a 
standardized test, The Nelson-Denny Reading Test, to identify the difficulties of 
individual students and to document their development in reading as they are tutored 
wit~in the program. This evaluation ·system currently appears to serve the purposes of 
both students and instructors, and to provide data on the effectiveness of the EOP 
program. 
Regular Admissions Students. Students admitted through the regular admissions 
program to The University at Albany have an average SAT total score of approximately 
1150. This alone suggests that few have "basic" reading difficulties. Given the status of 
the majority of our students, it does not seem reasonable to propose the expense and time 
of testing all entering students in any manner. Beyond a basic level of reading ability, 
problems almost certainly arise for students, but they are more likely to stem from 
reading about content with which they are not especially familiar. This type of difficulty 
is essentially indistinguishable from content knowledge in the domain of study, and its 
_, 
evaluation would be haJd to separat-e-f-rom-gen~ education knowledge or attair.:nent in 
c------'=-----t-he-m-ajeF'o. ----------------------------------
-8-
. <u<if 
.• w 
I 
I 
Transfer Students. Students transfer;ing to OU'!" 
::a::;;::n.!~ do not bnrlg wi:h t~1ei'!": ca:a 
such as SAT scores which allow simple comparisons wnh the na tJve fresh mer.. S:ud1es of 
this group do not allow analyses of their "basic sl.:.ills" as such. However data which are 
available show that their retention and graduation rates are comparable to those of 
regularly entering freshmen. and over twice the national average. Although there are 
initially differences between the two groups' C.P.A.'s, there are no reliable differences by 
the end of their degree programs. This lack of difference cannot be accounted for by 
differential attrition rates. Apparently, whatever the basic skills required of these 
students, they either have at entry or, through the existing support systems, acquire them 
during their studies. 
Recommendation 8: The EOP procedures for assessing reading skills should remain as 
they are. No additional assessment is needed in this area for students admitted through 
the regular admissions procedures or for transfer students. Students at risk, on probation, 
or otherwise suspected of reading deficiencies ought to be referred to Academic Services 
for testing and skill building, as they are now. 
Mathematics 
EOP Students. Just as in the area of reading, students entering the university under the 
EOP program have already demonstrated a probable difficulty in the area of math, and the 
EOP program currently handles this well, through a program of assessment and tutoring. 
Their assessment procedures also provide data on program effectiveness . 
Regular Admissions Students. Students entering the university through regular 
admissions, arrive with an above average range of quantitative SAT scores. Although a 
small group of students may have less than adequate skills in math for particular courses, 
the Math Department appears to have in place a program of assessme'ri! which examines 
the minimum skills of those students who intend to enter programs with heavy 
rna the rna tics demands and advises them accordingly. A large group of students enter 
programs which have limited or no math requirement. 
Transfer Students. The data available on this group of students suggests a diversity in 
math background with an average s1ight1y less than that of the native freshmen. Again, 
however, by the end of their program, they are essentially indistinguishable from the 
native freshmen in their G.P .A.s. (Moreover, this research finding occurred before the 
establishment on campus of our increasingly extensive support services. Pretesting all 
students in math, even though a large group of them will not need a great deal of 
mathematical sophistication, seems an unnecessary expense in both time and money. 
Individual programs have considerable diversity in their math requirements, and 
departments could sensibly handle any testing as part of their own programs. Current1y, 
departments with limited demand on rna th competence seem to handle the diversity of 
student background in sensible ways. 
Recommendation 9: 
The math assessment within the EOP program, and the existing 
testing for math placement soould remain as is. No further math assessment seems 
awropriate, as distinct from attainment in the major. 
;I_ ------------------------------~= 
_q-
-» 
Writing 
Writing is somewhat similar to the areas of reading and math, and is an important 
concern for many departments. Once again. however, we have different groups of 
students. 
EOP Students. The EOP students are admitted to the university having already 
demonstrated a probable difficulty in writing. Their writing is evaluated when they first 
come to campus, and they are given instructional support in that area. Writing samples 
are also collected prior to their exiting the program which allows the EOP program to 
provide for students' needs and to evaluate the program's effectiveness. 
Regular Admissions and Transfer Students. lt appears from discussions with faculty in 
general and directors of the writing program in particular, that we have very few new 
freshmen and transfer students admitted through regular admissions who fail to exhibit 
basic writing skills. 
Thus, the enormous expense of administering a wdting test to a11 entering freshman 
appears to be ill-advised. ln the first place, it would pose a heavy drain on already scarce 
resources. Second, most students who need basic writing instruct1on are either identified 
through the EOP admissions program, or become apparent when they take an intensive 
writing course.which is already a requirement on campus. Third, we already have campus 
mechanisms for-faculty referral of individual students to the Writing Center. Moreover, 
the bulk of students need to develop their writing in a specific domain, and to learn about 
writing in the academy, which is exactly what is supposed to occur in the writing intensive 
courses. Last, a general writing test would give us no information on how to improve the 
writing component of instructional programs. Writing, 1ike reading, becomes specialized 
within particular domains in terms of the conventions, the audience, and the logic. Thus, 
writing attainment also becomes tied ultimately to attainment in the major. 
Recommendation 10: 
Existing writing assessment and remedial 51.lP!:X>rt services should 
continue. Students who need basic writing skills should continue to receive them through 
the EOP Program, through referral to the Writing Center, through writing intensive 
courses, and through their majors. 
- 10-
....... w' 
·.ft" 
CONCLUSION 
Common Concerns Among All Four Assessment Areas 
Our thinking about issues of assessment was necessarily shaped by prior thinking both 
in the professional literature and within our own University. The boundaries among these 
four assessment areas, then, were selected primarily because of custom, our habitual ways 
of demarking curricular areas and stUdent achievement. As our thinking progressed over 
the course of this year's work, however, we began to understand how nuid the boundaries 
are among all the areas of this report- how, in fact, this institution creates an 
ecologically interdependent environment. For example, student attainment in the major 
grows directly out of student reading and writing and mathematics s~ills. Further, the 
educational breadth of our General Education program and the intellectual depth of the 
major are mutually reinforcing. Moreover, students must assume personal responsibility 
for their own growth in order to meet their responsibilities to the faculty. A student's 
intellectual development cannot be easily separated from personal and social development, 
nor can liberal learning and disciplinary expertness be independent. As a university 
community committed to excellence, we must be willing to call into question our 
customary ways of organizing teaching and learning; we must examine how limited and 
limiting any divison of responsibility for assessment is: we must be willing to see ourselves 
implicated in the success or failure of our students whether it be in terms of admission, 
advisement, instruction, support services, or administrative oversight. Our concluding 
recommendations, therefore, provide a means to continual1y audit our existing practices, 
to raise questions about the categories contained in this report .• and to assist us in 
discovering new directions for improving the quality of the intellectual lives of those 
within our university community. 
Recommendation 11: The University soould undertake app1opriate studies which examine 
the qu.ali ta rive experiences of students. At least three concerns should be addressed by 
such research: 
(a) 
Concerns about how basic skills, general education, personal and social growth, 
and attainment in the major interact; 
(b) 
Concerns about sttx:ient writing development; 
(c) 
Concerns about student advisement. 
We realize that these sorts of studies are extremely labor-intensive and that they 
would need to overcome a number of research problems, not the least of which are 
problems of sampling, anonymity, and s:aff resources. However, during our year of work, 
we discoyered that the University has already gathered a great many statistics about our 
students. To reach the next higher level of understanding, we need to examine student 
experiences in greater depth. How do students spend their time, and which of these 
"investments" produce learning? At what points in their academic careers do our students 
take General Education and writing intensive courses? When and how do students discover 
and use academic support services? In view of widespread student dissatisfaction w1th 
advisement, what actions can be taken by the Center for Undergraduate Education and by 
academic departments to improve it? These issues seem critical to us because we know so. 
little about the dynamics of undergraduate learning and growth. Our existing studies of 
freshman-to-senior-year cohorts, while they give us important quantitative information 
via questionnaires, fail to give us the qualitative information that we have discovered is 
v· 
.. 
··:~ ---------------------
- 11 -
With respect to the development of writing, we could, for instance, take a small g:oup 
of students and systematically sample the writing that they do over the course of their 
careers at the university. Students are required to take at least two intensive writing 
courses. This provides a natural opportunity to capitalize on existing writing samples 
produced in the context of normal academic writing, and with a time span between. These 
records would allow for analyses of the development of writing over the course of a 
student's time at this institution. At the same time, they might allow departments to 
study how their students' writing changes, and to make some inferences about what might 
be done to improve the course of that development. 
We are concerned about student advisement both because advisement is a source of 
student dissatisfaction, and because its effectiveness is a factor in any successful 
assessment program linked to student development. We need to develop better 
connections among assessment, student self appraisal, and advisement. 
Recently, the Panel learned that the Offices of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs 
are planning to test a student self-appraisal instrument at freshman orientation. In 
addition, a study skills software package is being purchased for the Interactive Media 
Center. By combining the self-appraisal with menu-driven skills lessons on the PC, the 
hope is that freshmen will receive a potential tool for self improvement. This is one 
model worth trying and evaluating to see if it has potential value, but other steps ought to 
be attempted as well. Which modes of assistance promote student growth and sklll 
development? Which students will most benefit from computer assisted instruction, and 
which need other kinds of interventions? Are there better ways of assisting students to 
make informed decisions based on realistic self-appraisals? For example, if students 
entering the university with a math SAT score within a given range knew that students 
within that range of scores had in the past achieved a grade in math intensive courses of C 
or worse with x probability, B or better withy probability, then they might be able to 
make more informed decisions about the use of instructional support. Yet the use of such 
data depends on the quality of advisement available, and the extent to which students 
avail themselves of it. What kinds of studies need to be undertaken to help this university 
better recruit and retain students, advise students, enrich their academic experiences? 
Without such studies, key questions remain vexing. To what extent are the large 
numbers of students on academic probation attributable to Jack of basic skills, to !X>Or 
advisement, to inadequate study habits, or to faculty grading practices (for example, if 
faculty grade on a curve, then certain numbers of students will always fail)? Which 
students use the extensive academic support services and does it make a difference in 
their performance? How do they judge their own abilities and assess their need for 
support? We hope future studies will provide us with this information, keeping us ever 
vigilant of our interdependence and our responsibility to each other. 
This Assessment Panel carried out 1ts responsibilities during 1989-90 recognizing that 
our work may continue beyond the boundaries of this academic year. If assessment is to 
grow at Albany and reinvigorate the curriculum, then ongoing support and organization 
must be provided by the University. Accordingly, we make the following additi-onal 
recommendations: 
Recommendation 12: Ongoing faculty oversight of assessment activity needs to be 
continued and should be provided either by the EPC, if it elects, or by the continuation of 
this Panel. 
·"'~-
. ~ .. ,. 
Recommendation 13: Incentive funds should be set aside_to support assessment plan 
development. 
-12-
----- ------------.......,.--------
-- ------- --~--j·-- --
--------------
----- ------ ---
-·-,..---~-----·------- ,. 
ESSMENT 
EGORIES 
ic Skills-
or both Proficiency 
nd curricular 
lacement) 
Ge eral Education S;~ills 
e s:onaljSocial Growth 
M turity :~J?-d satisfaction 
Att irifuent :in the 
A ademic:M-ajor 
ALBANY ASSESSMENT MATRIX 
CENTRALIZED STUDIES 
BY INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH 
MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE 
OF GROUPS 
Entering student surveys 
using self-reported 
measures developed by 
Institutional Research 
Freshmen-senior Cohort 
studies and Alumni 
surveys using self-:-
reported Measures 
Developed by Institutional 
Research 
Freshmen-Senior Coho~:t 
studies 
Alumni Surveys 
student opinion surveys 
Freshmen...,.senior Cohort 
studies and Alumni 
surveys with Analysis 
by Major 
----~---------------------. 
---~--------·-
DECENTRALIZED STUDIES 
MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE 
OF INDIVIDUALS 
Foreign Languages (All) 
Mathematics/Calculus (All) 
Reading (EOP) 
Science (EOP) 
Writing (All) 
Student Grades in Gen. Ed. 
Courses 
Course embedded assessments 
Discipline-Specific strategies 
Comprehensive Exam (11 depts) 
Capstone Course (10 depts) 
Essay & Intervievl (8 depts) 
Thesis/Research Proj (6 depts) 
Performance/Exhibit (3 depts) 
Internship/Field work(2 depts) 
Portfolio (2 depts) 
Multi-Method (l4 depts) 
Student Grades in Courses in 
the Major (All) 
STEPS TAKEN SINCE THE ASSESSMENT PANEL REPORT WAS APPROVED 
BY THE SENATE IN 1990 
The President accepted the report and the Vice President for Academic Affairs began 
implementation with the Deans, Chairs, and Senate Council on Educational Policy. 
1. Student Attainment in the Major 
* Academic Departments submitted preliminary plans in 1991. 
* Plans were reviewed by the Committee on Evaluation Policy in 1991-92 and a 
few departments began to initiate their plans. 
* Institutional Research supplied academic departments with alumni survey 
research results in 1992 and, with the Dean for Undergraduate Studies, 
began a series of college and department meetings aimed at helping 
departments get started. 
* An assessment workshop for academic departments is scheduled for November 
20. 
2. General Education and Intellectual Growth 
* Discussion of specific assessment set aside until design and approval of new 
General Education Program. This discussion scheduled for 1992-93. 
* Institutional Research continues its series of Freshman-Senior Cohort Studies 
begun in 1978 and using the General Education self-reported measures 
recommended by the EPC in 1980. These are summarized in Assessment 
Report No. 12 and will be presented in greater detail in the forthcoming 
Report No. 13. 
3. Personal Social Growth 
* The Institutional Research Cohort Studies and Student Opinion Surveys, 
summarized in Assessment Report No. 12, continue to be the primary 
source of systematic information in this area. 
* Co-curricular efforts aimed at promoting both student growth and retention have 
been strenthened, as recommended. 
* The University strengthened its exit interview procedures for departing students. 
* A survey instrument for non-returning students was designed and pilot tested. 
4. Basic Skills 
* The current variety of discipline~specific and population-specific campus 
programs in this area have been continued, as recommended by the Panel. 
5. On-going Concerns 
* The concerns expressed in the report about student advisement, about student 
writing development, and about the connectedness among basic skills, general education, 
personal and social growth, and attainment in the major all constitute long term challenges 
for the University. 
I. 
! 
. 
' 
OPTION 1: 
OPTION 2: 
OPTION 3: 
OPTION 4: 
SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENT ASSESSMENT PLANS 
IN THE MAJOR AT ALBANY 
senior Thesis or Research Project 
Africana Studies 
German Language & Literature 
History 
Latin American & Caribbean studies 
Music (theory) 
Political Science & PUblic Affairs 
Performance Experience 
Art (exhibit) 
Music (performance) 
Public Affairs (internship) 
Social Welfare (field internship with seminar) 
Theatre (performance) 
Women's Studies (internship) 
capstone course 
Accounting 
Business Administration 
Communication -
(with interviews) 
Geography & Planning (under review) 
History 
Mathematics 
Philosophy 
Religious studies 
Social Welfare (seminar with internship) 
Women's Studies (with research paper) 
comprehensive Examination 
Accounting (CPA exam) 
Biology 
Chemistry (pilot test ETS exam) 
computer science 
Hispanic & Italian 
History 
Music 
Psychology - (pilot test ETS exam) 
Physics (pilot test ETS exam) 
Social Studies 
Sociology (pilot test ETS exam) 
f·~------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------
1 I 
! 
OPTION 5: 
OPTION 6: 
OPTION 7: 
\ 
I 
\ 
\ l 
student Portfolio,.of Learn:Lng Experiences 
·: 
r'' ·:·,. :; cl ·.~ .. 
~. !,.,.,! 
-~) ·•• 
\~ 
' 
. .Art (po.r·t'f<".ll'ic;>; c/i:r artistic work) 
English (w;~~~n9 portfolio)~ 
::,' 
tl ·.,:.· 
... 1 
Senior Essay 
(o.;~; survey) and Interview 
; C~ r; .. r·: ), :~ r·~ .. 
.. Atmospheri,c Sql~nce 
.:: ,.nc 
;:·~·'" :.::·:. · 
Biology···~:·, ..... ,,··· .. ·'···' 
·· · · 
· ·J'"'"-' 
·· 
··:<::t·:::::· · 
· 
, 
-
. • , . 
•" 
,. , •' 
: o 
~: 
.-.~·. 
I 
. '". ··, 
; 
. • '• . . 
,. 
. 
• 
ClassJ:cS ·. ('J oTnt· .. f.acul ty-student rev~ew) 
East ·As~ian·: Ef'bid'i;eJi> ,(.w.i!:!l··~faculty stud.ent Retreat) 
Geolo:g·i'cm'F· scH~n:~:$s .... I'. v 
::: : 
.,.. 
· 
· 
German• ·L~n~u~g~ .. :, ~':~ r;i te.~~ t~re10 
Judaic· SfuCliE~s' '(with· Faculty student Retreat) 
Linguistics &~qqgni~iY% Sq,ence 
, ..... '\;:: 
t .... /,;J,.,, 
.... 
Other DepartmeiQta:J, .. Al tern,~ti ve 
~ 
, 
·.~ -~,:. ! " ~. ' , : -~·x 
". 'L !_~; :~·· 
~.' .'v.~ .' :~~.; 
,." 
·; ~~<t~ ·i (.\ ·~" 
~ l ;;: . .'. , 
<A> 'Mu:lrt·.i..:M:e~:thc.,f:C!giru)inati~n- · · 
-A:ccount:tng · & Business Administration 
:Arrthropo~og:y .. . 
·.:::>::: 
Art · .·;;;•r ·.: ::· 
::·,I .. ;· ·'" 
Atmasphatte~science 
commtmicat:i6rl 
. . .. 
French':Studles ,·,;1 '. ~.· .. , 
Geography & PlarttA'ing 
Geolo·gical Sciences 
Hispanic & Italian 
Linguistics & Cogni ti.:ve .. .S:qi.~nce 
PubLi·c 'AT·fa irs·: 
.· 
' ........ . 
;S:lav;ic 'iE;a.hguages & Literature 
Social<~Welfan.~ 
soe.ialog~ ·· ··c:: · ::.: 
Women's Studies 
•.. 
·-~.r 
.-·; r ,:: 
~ 
' 
·~::;~. ~< t ": {":."\ ·~"' ;. 
> 
(Bl ·Bxt.ernal Examiners 
The
1att~.>~ ·: 
,',(,:.HJ-1 ''',.·· •. -~~~:.·:.,.
1
;
1
,· •• :.~:::• -~~ 
·' .t 
'· 
(C) Alum:rfil.···llt:'u'd'i®$ ·an:cf uae of Existing 
, : , , Hi~J•tor:n."l!l~ . ~~;p~rtmental Data 
Antnropo:l':C:>gy 
.. : ·. -~ .. .' , .... -:~ 
Atmospheri6·Jsc:renc~s ... ··· 
Business .... Administri,\tion 
E. con· o:m.1' .,~,_...... 
..· 
·1 ·: ·:.'· '· .: •. <:. )... 
... 
..··.! 
• 
• 
"""0 
:·:;;,-· "' t'·:"' ,. 
Hispan;ic".& :ttal:iaih:: 1 \ 
Ling.U±st·.t.cs & cognitive science 
Sociology 
and 
--\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ 
I 
I